S03.E04: Sabrosito2017.05.01

I dunno, it seems to me that a house without electricity, without a telephone, where camp lanterns are set upon stacks of newspapapers, where the single occupant/lawyer is known to become suddenly incapacitated, is a far more precarious setting for vital documents than a bustling legal office or a normal attorney's home. There's a lot of different ways that HHM is violating legal ethics, and many ways for Howard to abandon Chuck, and we'll see where the writers go with it.

I think you could make a better argument that it was negligent of HHM to put the case and to a lesser extent, the actual documents in the hands of a clearly unhinged partner at all, than that it was negligent for Chuck to have them in his house.

4

Share Post

Link to post

I think you could make a better argument that it was negligent of HHM to put the case and to a lesser extent, the actual documents in the hands of a clearly unhinged partner at all, than that it was negligent for Chuck to have them in his house.

Well, sure, it is both. Chuck's mentally ill; he doesn't understand that his mental illness is compelling him to do things that are not in the best interests of his clients, like keeping important documents in a firetrap without a telephone.

Spoiler

Looking at the title of the last episode of the season indicates to me that we've have been informed of how Chuck meets his demise.

4

Share Post

Link to post

I just love this show. It's like watching two shows at the same time--Better Call Saul and Breaking Bad: The Early Years. I'm glad the flashback scenes move slowly because the brain (or, at least, my brain) needs time to assimilate this new information to BB landscape.

Edited May 2, 2017 by PeterPirate.

6

Share Post

Link to post

I just love this show. It's like watching two shows at the same time--Better Call Saul and Breaking Bad: The Early years. I'm glad the flashback scenes move slowly because the brain (or, at least, my brain) needs time to assimilate this new information to BB landscape.

Would a thread comparing and contrasting the two shows be something that would interest people?

Share Post

Link to post

I agree that HHM is very vulnerable to ethics charges or at least to a grave loss of reputation for the way they have hidden Chuck's mental illness from clients, I don't really buy the failure to take reasonable care of clients' documents charge though. I am sure lawyers frequently take work home or take documents home when they are going to go straight to court the next morning. Generally speaking the documents might have been safer at Chuck's, where Chuck is almost always home, due to his "condition" and very, few people come and go, as opposed to in a bustling legal office where attorneys, clients, employees, maintenance people, deliverymen, etc. are constantly coming and going. It was not foreseeable to Chuck that anyone would break in to tamper with fairly innocuous licensing documents.

I think it actually may have been foreseeable to Chuck, given his low opinion of Jimmy and his knowledge of Jimmy's allegiance to Kim, that he needed to keep a close eye on those files. But even if not, it is still a lawyer's obligation to safeguard these things. It is one of the canons of professional ethics that client confidences must be protected. If lawyers routinely take files home, or have people going in and out of their offices, they aren't released from the obligation. If a client's interests are compromised, "everybody does it" isn't a good defense. Jimmy did the fraud, but HHM isn't off the hook.

Share Post

Link to post

It would never have occurred to me before this week, but I wonder if we're headed toward an ironic turnabout by which, in his attempt to save his law license, Jimmy accidentally gets Chuck disbarred. I could imagine that leading to some heavy guilt -- but it would also be pretty amusing if Jimmy changes his name to Saul Goodman not because he's embarrassed himself, but because Chuck's downfall drags the family name through the mud.

At this moment I would say it's 50-50 that HHM goes down too.

After all, we're in Breakingbadland. Everything gets blow'd up eventually.

5

Share Post

Link to post

I think it actually may have been foreseeable to Chuck, given his low opinion of Jimmy and his knowledge of Jimmy's allegiance to Kim, that he needed to keep a close eye on those files. But even if not, it is still a lawyer's obligation to safeguard these things. It is one of the canons of professional ethics that client confidences must be protected. If lawyers routinely take files home, or have people going in and out of their offices, they aren't released from the obligation. If a client's interests are compromised, "everybody does it" isn't a good defense. Jimmy did the fraud, but HHM isn't off the hook.

I don't think it is foreseeable to expect that a fellow officer of the court, and your only brother would tamper with your client's files. Jimmy had been entrusted with documents to make copies of them when he was a lowly mailroom clerk at HHM for 6 years. I don't think it is reasonable to expect lawyers to be paranoid.

Now, you could argue that, Chuck knowing what he knows about Jimmy, it could be a bit more foreseeable. But, the ethics board would not know what Chuck knows about Jimmy. Also, at the time, Jimmy was no longer really in Chuck's life.

It is not an "everybody does it", defense. It is a lawyer keeping documents at his residence does not create an undue risk of theft/tampering defense.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Bryce Lynch.

1

Share Post

Link to post

I guess I'm the only one, but I don't think Jimmy and Kim are out to prove, "Chuck's crazy," but simple entrapment -- and as Chuck would say in his prissy, pearl clutching tone, "Entrapment is against the law."

Ah Gus, I think you're happiest when you're tidying up the place, restoring order to the restaurant and building patriotism and good work ethics in your devoted employees. I'll gladly come run the drive thru for you, especially if Nacho will stop in once in while and just stand there and look handsome.

Those cartel guys can make, "We're all friends here, " sound so terrifying. No amount of money would ever tempt me to live in fear like they do.

11

Share Post

Link to post

I thought the poolside meeting we saw in BB was Gus' introduction to Don Eladio & Hector; but this episode shows Gus as already being in with and paying tribute to Don E. What's the sequence of events; because obviously Don Eladio is not poisoned. (though a similar bottle was there on the table).

2

Share Post

Link to post

I guess I'm the only one, but I don't think Jimmy and Kim are out to prove, "Chuck's crazy," but simple entrapment -- and as Chuck would say in his prissy, pearl clutching tone, "Entrapment is against the law."

Ah Gus, I think you're happiest when you're tidying up the place, restoring order to the restaurant and building patriotism and good work ethics in your devoted employees. I'll gladly come run the drive thru for you, especially if Nacho will stop in once in while and just stand there and look handsome.

Those cartel guys can make, "We're all friends here, " sound so terrifying. No amount of money would ever tempt me to live in fear like they do.

Entrapment is not, illegal per se. It is a defense that can be used by defendants caught in stings by law enforcement, if they can show that either a) they were not predisposed to commit the crime until the police enticed them b) the actions of the police would be likely to induce normally law abiding people to commit crimes.

It doesn't really apply to private citizens, and Chuck certainly committed no crime.

Making the tape was certainly not entrapment. Setting the trap for Jimmy to steal the tape, might be considered entrapment (if Chuck was with law enforcement), but I don't really think it is. Is merely leaking the fact that you have a damaging tape going to entice an otherwise law abiding person break into your home to try to steal it or damage/destroy it? I don't think a normal, law abiding person ever breaks into anyone's home to steal.

2

Share Post

Link to post

Those cartel guys can make, "We're all friends here, " sound so terrifying. No amount of money would ever tempt me to live in fear like they do.

No kidding. And Nacho is skating on thin ice, trying to get Tuco killed, doing his own deals, and tipping Mike about what Hector did to the good Samaritan. None of that is going to exactly ensure his longevity.

4

Share Post

Link to post

I thought the poolside meeting we saw in BB was Gus' introduction to Don Eladio & Hector; but this episode shows Gus as already being in with and paying tribute to Don E. What's the sequence of events; because obviously Don Eladio is not poisoned. (though a similar bottle was there on the table).

I think the meeting in this episode took place after the one depicted in Breaking Bad. In that episode, Gus and Max were still in Mexico, trying to get in on the cartel's business. In this one Gus is apparently in the States, and is clearly an important cog in the cartel's machine.

Don Eladio couldn't possibly be poisoned yet; that doesn't happen until late in the Breaking Bad timeline.

5

Share Post

Link to post

I thought the poolside meeting we saw in BB was Gus' introduction to Don Eladio & Hector; but this episode shows Gus as already being in with and paying tribute to Don E. What's the sequence of events; because obviously Don Eladio is not poisoned. (though a similar bottle was there on the table).

It obviously takes place some time after Hector killed Max at the poolside and sometime before BB starts, since Hector is not paralyzed. I would think it was a relatively short time after Max was killed, as Eladio is just beginning to realize how profitable Fring is.

I am interested to know how Hector became less resentful toward Eladio and Bolsa.

Spoiler

He was clearly very distressed when Fring told him that Eladio and the cartel capos were all dead, and Fring made a point of waving Eladio's pendant in his face. In this flashback, Hector seems to be jealous of Bolsa and be angry with and have little respect for Eladio.

1

Share Post

Link to post

Entrapment is not, illegal per se. It is a defense that can be used by defendants caught in stings by law enforcement, if they can show that either a) they were not predisposed to commit the crime until the police enticed them b) the actions of the police would be likely to induce normally law abiding people to commit crimes.

Well shucks. I didn't know that. I guess I'm reaching because I really don't want to see Chuck go down for being mentally ill.

2

Share Post

Link to post

It would never have occurred to me before this week, but I wonder if we're headed toward an ironic turnabout by which, in his attempt to save his law license, Jimmy accidentally gets Chuck disbarred. I could imagine that leading to some heavy guilt -- but it would also be pretty amusing if Jimmy changes his name to Saul Goodman not because he's embarrassed himself, but because Chuck's downfall drags the family name through the mud.

I love this. Such a perfect way to play with the audience's expectations when from the very beginning Howard (and Chuck) were trying to force Jimmy to give up his name.

4

Share Post

Link to post

No kidding. And Nacho is skating on thin ice, trying to get Tuco killed, doing his own deals, and tipping Mike about what Hector did to the good Samaritan. None of that is going to exactly ensure his longevity.

That could all be leading up to an explanation of why Saul, when kidnapped by Walt and Jesse, who he wrongly assumes were from the cartel, yells, "It wasn't me, it was Ignacio! He's the one!"

Share Post

Link to post

Well shucks. I didn't know that. I guess I'm reaching because I really don't want to see Chuck go down for being mentally ill.

Chuck wouldn't need to worry about criminal entrapment, this is all going to be happening at the level of the bar association and whatever ethics violations have been committed by Jimmy, and then whatever Kim and Jimmy are planning to do regarding the tape. Which they are quite excited about.

0

Share Post

Link to post

I don't think it is foreseeable to expect that a fellow officer of the court, and your only brother would tamper with your client's files. Jimmy had been entrusted with documents to make copies of them when he was a lowly mailroom clerk at HHM for 6 years. I don't think it is reasonable to expect lawyers to be paranoid.

Now, you could argue that, Chuck knowing what he knows about Jimmy, it could be a bit more foreseeable. But, the ethics board would not know what Chuck knows about Jimmy. Also, at the time, Jimmy was no longer really in Chuck's life.

It is not an "everybody does it", defense. It is a lawyer keeping documents at his residence does not create an undue risk of theft/tampering defense.

It is forseeable that a lawyer who has a history of becoming suddenly incapacitated will have a markedly greater chance of leaving vital documents unsecured, as he brings those documents to his home without electricity, no telephone, for extended periods of time. That's an ethical problem for both the lawyer and the law firm.

Share Post

Link to post

It is forseeable that a lawyer who has a history of becoming suddenly incapacitated will have a markedly greater chance of leaving vital documents unsecured, as he brings those documents to his home without electricity, no telephone, for extended periods of time. That's an ethical problem for both the lawyer and the law firm.

I'm not sure how the lack of electricity and telephone affect the security of the documents. Chuck's mental state is a legitimate concern and you could argue the fact that he kept lanterns on top of newspapers put the documents of greater risk of destruction by fire. But, keeping the documents at home did not put the documents at an foreseeable undue risk of being tampered with by a con artist, turned lawyer.

12 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

I even added, change "victim" to "plaintiff". Victim evokes sympathy.

Good idea but it was a criminal case, so I think victim would apply, not plaintiff. Perhaps they could have said, "homeowner" or "Mr. McGill" instead of victim, but Chuck probably wouldn't have gone for that.

2

Share Post

Link to post

Hector told Don Eladio that Ximenez got waved through customs. This doesn't match with the first scene of Fifi, when Ximenez does get stopped. I have to believe this "glitch" was intentional and will be explained sometime down the road.

Edited May 2, 2017 by PeterPirate.

1

Share Post

Link to post

This sets up a GREAT caper - almost like the "great train robbery/Science, bitches" hijinks of BB?

I immediately thought about the cassette tape at end of the "Escape from New York" flick..............me thinks that Chuck and Howie are going to be left at the hearing holding their respective genitalia in hand, wondering what went wrong.

Spoiler

Jimmy will turn it all back on chuck by questioning his competence - he'll pull out the photos of chuck's house/living conditions - forcing chuck to play the tape, which will have been swapped out by Mike. The tape will have some totally appropriate and off-the-wall tunes on it.

1

Share Post

Link to post

It is forseeable that a lawyer who has a history of becoming suddenly incapacitated will have a markedly greater chance of leaving vital documents unsecured, as he brings those documents to his home without electricity, no telephone, for extended periods of time. That's an ethical problem for both the lawyer and the law firm.

Yes, and look what he just did. He went upstairs while leaving a complete stranger downstairs. If he is working on anything for the firm, since there's no electricity, there are paper files. In fact Mike went into his address book. I think that's a pretty clear breach of the requirement to protect client confidences. He doesn't hold himself to his own high standards.

4

Share Post

Link to post

I am starting to think the producers have made a conscience decision not to try to make Mike, Gus or other BB characters like Don Eladio look as young or younger than they did in Breaking Bad. It seems like they have decided that rather hiring the makeup team from Star Trek and trying to make guys look 20 years younger than they really are, by slapping 10 pounds of makeup on them, they are just going to show them as they are and let the audience get used to it.

Hopefully, in a few weeks, our minds will be reprogrammed to think that they were supposed to look that old in 2002 or 2003.

Share Post

Link to post

Yes, and look what he just did. He went upstairs while leaving a complete stranger downstairs. If he is working on anything for the firm, since there's no electricity, there are paper files. In fact Mike went into his address book. I think that's a pretty clear breach of the requirement to protect client confidences. He doesn't hold himself to his own high standards.

Oh, the Chuckster is a towering hypocrite, among his other charming qualities.

7 minutes ago, scenario said:

I assume that Chuck gave Mike a check for the repairs. I wonder if Mike cashed the check? If he didn't, I'm sure Chuck would notice.

It might take a month or more, given Chuck certainy isn't checking his account activity via telephone or computer.

Share Post

Link to post

Oh, the Chuckster is a towering hypocrite, among his other charming qualities.

It might take a month or more, given Chuck certainy isn't checking his account activity via telephone or computer.

How quickly will the hearing be? Chuck has pull but it would probably be more than a month away. He'll get his statement before the hearing. I think Mike almost has to cash the check to make the job look legit.

Share Post

Link to post

I'm not sure how the lack of electricity and telephone affect the security of the documents. Chuck's mental state is a legitimate concern and you could argue the fact that he kept lanterns on top of newspapers put the documents of greater risk of destruction by fire. But, keeping the documents at home did not put the documents at an foreseeable undue risk of being tampered with by a con artist, turned lawyer.

Good idea but it was a criminal case, so I think victim would apply, not plaintiff. Perhaps they could have said, "homeowner" or "Mr. McGill" instead of victim, but Chuck probably wouldn't have gone for that.

If the house doesn't have electricity, and thus no telephone (given cell phones are unacceptable, also), then, in addition to the unacceptable risk of document destruction by fire (given the camp lanterns), Chuck, the only occupant, even if he isnt incapacitated, or becomes capacitated as a burglary takes place, or fire starts, has no means to call 911. He can't have a security system. I doubt there is a single law office in Albuquerque without one, and any lawyer who is keeping vital documents in his home for extended periods of time really should be epected to have one, given Albuquerque's high burglary rate, even in good neighborhoods. It really is indisupatable that any location that is used to store vital documents for extended periods of time should have a telephone and/or a security system.

Our disagreement here is kind of minor. We agree that Chuck Howard, and HHM are on the precipice of a disaster, and it is being portrayed in a very entertaining fashion.

Share Post

Link to post

My theory is that Howard might be setting up Chuck to be humiliated at the hearing and have a mental breakdown, so he can have him committed. I assume Chuck has taken steps to make sure Jimmy will never have any sort of guardianship over him, and since he has no other family or friends, Howard would be the logical choice for Chuck to appoint to be his medical proxy/conservator. If Howard is put in charge of Chuck's affairs while he is institutionalized, he could probably take control of HHM without having to buy Chuck out.

I like this theory. I still think that there's more going on with Howard than it appears. So far he has been pretty one dimensional, which is unlike the BB/BCS universe. Especially a character like this in which big decisions go through so I doubt he will continue to be so straightforward.

3

Share Post

Link to post

Regarding the $1.98 for the tape, I couldn't quite figure out if Chuck was being petty in wanting every penny of restitution or if he added the charge on so there would be documentation that Jimmy has destroyed (or was it "damaged") a cassette tape, so he can bring in the undamaged, original tape in Jimmy's ethics hearing. I am guessing it was the latter.

I thought the wording was changed to "item of personal property"; having it be documented that it was a tape could be in Jimmy's favor. Technically, Jimmy only damaged the tape, in that it was repairable and could be used if necessary, but Chuck would need to know if something had happened to the original.

Share Post

Link to post

Good question! I want to say that it was Walter that came up with the idea, after Mike did the recon of the PD station where the footage was kept?

Jesse came up the magnet idea. Mike and Walt were bickering, with Walt talking about getting a "device" entered into evidence and Mike accusing him of wanting to commit a whole other crime and then kill a bunch of cops. Jesse, sitting off to the side, keeps saying, "What about a magnet?"

Stealing the methylamine from the freight train tanker and replacing it with water was also Jesse's idea. There seemed to be a pattern where Jesse would come up with a great idea, it would work, but then Walt would push things to far causing it to backfire.

Walt going too hard on the magnet controls, cause the picture frame of Gus and Schuler to be broken revealing the off shore bank accounts. Walt trying to get every last drop of methylamine almost cause them to get caught and might have contributed to the Drew Sharp shooting.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Bryce Lynch.

3

Share Post

Link to post

Jesse came up the magnet idea. Mike and Walt were bickering, with Walt talking about getting a "device" entered into evidence and Mike accusing him of wanting to commit a whole other crime and then kill a bunch of cops. Jesse, sitting off to the side, keeps saying, "What about a magnet?"

2

Share Post

Link to post

How quickly will the hearing be? Chuck has pull but it would probably be more than a month away. He'll get his statement before the hearing. I think Mike almost has to cash the check to make the job look legit.

I think that the Chuckster deals in cash only.

He's pretty much house bound and there are really no checks to write - other than a water/sewer bill and what else?

If Chucky has problems with electricity, what other paranoia might he be afflicted with?

Being spied upon? Spaceships in Area 51?n The Grassy Knoll?

(plus remember when Jimmy brought Chucky his supplies and newspapers, Chuck asked J to pay himself from the cup on shelf?)

1

Share Post

Link to post

Jesse came up the magnet idea. Mike and Walt were bickering, with Walt talking about getting a "device" entered into evidence and Mike accusing him of wanting to commit a whole other crime and then kill a bunch of cops. Jesse, sitting off to the side, keeps saying, "What about a magnet?"

Stealing the methylamine from the freight train tanker and replacing it with water was also Jesse's idea. There seemed to be a pattern where Jesse would come up with a great idea, it would work, but then Walt would push things to far causing it to backfire.

Walt going too hard on the magnet controls, cause the picture frame of Gus and Schuler to be broken revealing the off shore bank accounts. Walt trying to get every last drop of methylamine almost cause them to get caught and might have contributed to the Drew Sharp shooting.

Thanks.

1

Share Post

Link to post

Gus is now smuggling more drugs so he has to open more restaurants in order to have enough volume to safely transport them. Not all of Gus's restaurants are directly involved in the drug trade. They're basically used to launder the money. Gus could move Lyle to one of the new restaurants that's not directly involved in the drug trade since he's one of Gus's "best" employees to show all the new people the ropes.

Or Gus is forced to kill Lyle and calls Mike to help him cover up the crime.

1

Share Post

Link to post

Gus is now smuggling more drugs so he has to open more restaurants in order to have enough volume to safely transport them. Not all of Gus's restaurants are directly involved in the drug trade. They're basically used to launder the money. Gus could move Lyle to one of the new restaurants that's not directly involved in the drug trade since he's one of Gus's "best" employees to show all the new people the ropes.

Or Gus is forced to kill Lyle and calls Mike to help him cover up the crime.

Lyle seems like such a nice guy. If Gus wants to protect him, move him to an LPH store, as you said, that has the least to do with the trade and promote him to general manager.

Share Post

Link to post

I hadn't thought of it until now, and maybe it has been discussed in prior seasons, but could Chuck even have an occupancy permit and be living legally in the house with no electricity? No solar panels or anything, meaning no lighting and thus fire code problems. He couldn't even have smoke detectors because they have batteries.

8 minutes ago, scenario said:

Or Gus is forced to kill Lyle and calls Mike to help him cover up the crime.

But neither one of them wants to kill civilians. Lyle is not in the game.

I find that I like people who are competent at what they do and dislike people who are not.

Gus has three jobs, run a restaurant, be a pillar of the community and drug lord. He is a perfectionist. He does all three jobs very well. He never commits any crimes or annoys anyone without good reason. I like Gus even though if I knew him in real life and know what I know, I'd stay as far away from him as possible.

Jimmy is similar. When he does something legal and by the book he does it right. He was good in the mail room and he's good with the elderly. When he goes bad and defends criminals for large amounts of money he is very good at that as well, totally unethical and immoral but very good.

Chuck on the other hand talks about high standards all the time but makes all sorts of mistakes. I just cannot respect someone who talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. If he really thinks that Jimmy shouldn't be a lawyer and has really high moral standards he should have been upfront about it right away to Jimmy and everyone else. He tried to look like the good guy to Jimmy while stabbing him in the back. If he was openly evil, I can respect that. But he says he's good but constantly uses the tactics of the bad guys.

Kim is a good woman who lives the life she preaches.

I'm not sure about Howard yet. He seems like a straight shooter who lives by his ideals unless he is being forced into compromising them by Chuck but I'm not sure yet.

Hector is a drug lord who rules by fear and nothing else. He is effective in inducing fear in his enemies and his friends. The problem with this path is that it tends to produce only yes men. It limits you. He is also very emotional and creates unnecessary enemies. I don't like him because he is taking unnecessary risks.

In BB, I liked Walt at first because once he decided to break bad he did it right. He was ruthless as a crime lord needs to be. But towards the end he got sloppy. But I always hated Jesse because he should never have been involved in drugs at the level he was at.

Share Post

Link to post

I've loved Mark Margolis since The Equalizer, Giancarlo Esposito since School Daze, and Jonathan Banks since Wiseguy so I thought this episode was awesome.

Steven Bauer was also in Wiseguy, and he was in this episode of Better Call Saul. IIRC, Bauer took over the lead in the Wiseguy series after Wahl left. Wiseguy was never the same after Wahl left.

I am not sure what is up Kim's sleeve, but apparently having Chuck and Howard admit there was a second tape must have something to do with it. Makes me wonder if Kim was recording that entire conversation. Who would ever want to hire Chuck if it became known that he was recording conversations?

Edited May 2, 2017 by icemiser69.

1

Share Post

Link to post

I hadn't thought of it until now, and maybe it has been discussed in prior seasons, but could Chuck even have an occupancy permit and be living legally in the house with no electricity? No solar panels or anything, meaning no lighting and thus fire code problems. He couldn't even have smoke detectors because they have batteries.

But neither one of them wants to kill civilians. Lyle is not in the game.

Oh, the house is illegal to occupy, if the city were made aware of it. That's actually a plot hole, given the police saw the condition of the home back in season 1. They almost certainly would have called the city's code compliance department. I'll just pretend the police visit didn't happen.

(edit) Then again, I know Albuquerque, and it is completely credible that a influential attorney could convince the city's code compliance department to ignore it, and Chuck's a big enough hypocrite to to pull strings. Coud be another pitfall with the Bar Association, however.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Bannon.
Reason: addition

2

Share Post

Link to post

I hadn't thought of it until now, and maybe it has been discussed in prior seasons, but could Chuck even have an occupancy permit and be living legally in the house with no electricity? No solar panels or anything, meaning no lighting and thus fire code problems. He couldn't even have smoke detectors because they have batteries.

But neither one of them wants to kill civilians. Lyle is not in the game.

In most area's I know, no he couldn't legally live in a house without electricity. You can in a rural area like a hunting camp but not in the middle of the city.

6 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

I hadn't thought of it until now, and maybe it has been discussed in prior seasons, but could Chuck even have an occupancy permit and be living legally in the house with no electricity? No solar panels or anything, meaning no lighting and thus fire code problems. He couldn't even have smoke detectors because they have batteries.

But neither one of them wants to kill civilians. Lyle is not in the game.

He doesn't want to kill Lyle but if Lyle stumbles across a bunch of evidence like piles of drugs, he's now in the game whether he wants to be or not.